User talk:Pyrotec/Archive08Q2

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Assessment Ravenscraig

I've commented (I hope constructively - its not intended as discouragement). I think the article is currently "Start / Low". I've given some suggestions to get it up to Start / Mid. I think it could make "B / High", but you have not made use of information that is already out there (on wikipedia) and in printed form. Pyrotec (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, i hadn't really thought about pollution etc. And to be honest, i have really only just worked out how to properly use the references part! ha. Thats great though, gives me something to work for. Much appreciated. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Larkhall line

Hi Stewart, I was going around tagging articles, when I came across this orphaned article. I'm not really convinced that it is needed as a standalone article, but its not really covered in the Argyle Line - possible paste into the Argyle Line article and delete? Any thoughts?Pyrotec (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Really a no-brainer in my opinion. Detail should go to the Argyle Line article (it is out of date, since the Sunday service is not included. I would suggest after updating the Argyle Line article, that a redirect to the Argyle Line is provided. There may also be a case for including a bit of this detail in the articles for Mid Lanark Lines and Coalburn Branch (however I have still to put my thinking hat on for the route maps and stub articles for these two lines). --Stewart ^(talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes

Since you voted on a proposal to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal here on MOSNUM. I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. Greg L (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ravenscraig steelworks

Pyrotec - I've split out a Ravenscraig steelworks article from the Ravenscraig article. I think it deserves a page all it to itself. I hope this meets with your approval! - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into someone elses talk pages, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure this was a good change. Despite the fact you left no link to the new page. I can perhaps see the point of it having its own page, but there is very little info just now. And you took away the only image from Ravenscraig. And there is no link in Ravenscraig_steelworks back to Ravenscraig. Sorry, but this was a useless edit. Perhaps we should discuss things like this (ie. such major edits) on the articles talk page instead? I must be honest, I really dislike this change. Instead of one "Start-Class" article, you have probably split it into two stubs. If the general consensus is to keep it split, then major work is required for both articles to get them looking well. Right now they both look like crap. Sorry for all this on your page Pyrotech, I have copied all this onto the articles talk page, best to continue any conversations there, yes? ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (secret)} 07:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Transportation WikiProjects

I believe Category:WikiProject Transport is specifically for that project and its subprojects, whereas Category:Transportation WikiProjects can be used more broadly for wikiprojects related to transportation which (for whatever reason) don't consider themselves to be subprojects of WikiProject Transport. But I grant you that the WikiProject categorization system is a mess, and I'm unsure how it should be fixed. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm working to diffuse categories and projects out of Category:WikiProjects as much as possible. It's not important to me whether the transportation WikiProjects end up under Category:WikiProject Transport or Category:Transportation WikiProjects, though I have a slight preference for the former. Let me know how you wish to proceed, and I'll cooperate. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll vote on binary prefixes

I note that you voted on a proposed MOSNUM policy for Wikipedia to use the common binary prefixes like “kilobit” rather than the IEC prefixes (“kibibit”). Since you took an interest in the issue at that time, I thought it proper to let you know that the proposal has since morphed into a broader policy (MOSNUM #Follow current literature). A straw poll on whether the basic principle underlying that policy is sound is currently ongoing here at Talk MOSNUM #Straw poll. I hope you read the policy and vote as you see fit. Hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Women's roles in the World Wars

I wouldn't have called the recent anon IP edit to Women's roles in the World Wars "vandalism"... maybe the drive-by about-face rewrite by a first time editor should have been noted as well-intentioned revisionism or at least good faith. WP:FAITH. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I could accept a good faith edit. What was added was placed in the wrong section - it was nothing to do with pre-WW I, which is the title of the section; but I might have accepted it elsewhere, albeit as an unreferenced POV. It was more a question of what was removed - the removed statement was directly linked to the following sentences, which had inline citations. I'd been catching up on about five days of changes across and number of articles and (unfortunately) many IP edits do turn out to be vandalism.Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, inexpertly applied, unreferenced, good faith edit. ;^) ... Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gunpowder

I should have taken your advice and kept away from 'the prehistory of gunpowder'. I'm really not ready for a 'discussion' like this (where flaming others to frustration is the norm, this is like a really disturbing discussion board) and yet I can't allow someone to just omit Encyclopedia Britannica just like that.

I have the 'Oxford History of Modern War' and the 'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Firearms' ready for Europe. I doubt I'll be contributing much on this article given Meatwaggon's bullying. Can I mail you the quotes? I have a few copied/pasted and ready.

Vtria 08 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll send the entire list at one go tomorrow. I have access to the 'Oxford History of Modern War' online but 'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Firearms' is paper and print, which translates to slight delay. Vtria 08 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your e-mail is turned off. Here is some of what I was working on. Vtria 08 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec,

I just want to point out that the "Early gunpowder" section of the "military technology" entry of the 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica states that:

Chinese alchemists discovered the recipe for what became known as black powder in the 9th century AD; this was a mixture of finely ground potassium nitrate (also called saltpetre), charcoal, and sulfur in approximate proportions of 75:15:10 by weight. The resultant gray powder behaved differently from anything previously known; it exploded on contact with open flame or a red-hot wire, producing a bright flash, a loud report, dense white smoke, and a sulfurous smell. It also produced considerable quantities of superheated gas, which, if confined in a partially enclosed container, could drive a projectile out of the open end. The Chinese used the substance in rockets, in pyrotechnic projectors much like Roman candles, in crude cannon, and, according to some sources, in bombs thrown by mechanical artillery. This transpired long before gunpowder was known in the West, but development in China stagnated. The development of black powder as a tactically significant weapon was left to the Europeans, who probably acquired it from the Mongols in the 13th century (though diffusion through the Arab Muslim world is also a possibility).

In other words, even within the 2008 edition of the Britannica alone, we have accounts which differ with regard to what century gunpowder was invented, whether the Chinese put it to military use, and what role the Arabs had to play.

In other words, if you're going to remove "challengeable" material from Britannica's "explosive" entry (pun regrettably intended), the "military technology" entry in the very same edition of the very same encyclopedia challenges that account in almost every detail.

JFD (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was getting a bit p*ssed off. There is an edit war on Gunpowder and the History of gunpowder

I noticed, and after my experience at Tea, I made a point of staying the hell out of it :)

JFD (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the book:

Jeremy Black is Professor of History at the University of Exeter. His books include Why Wars Happen (1998); War and the World 1450–2000 (1998); Warfare in the Eighteenth Century (1999); and Britain as a Military Power 1688–1815 (1999). War—Past, Present and Future will appear later this year.

Vtria 08 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

After having revert warred with me and user:Ammar shaker, Meatwaggon has now undone your edits:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_gunpowder&diff=211124743&oldid=211111737
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunpowder&diff=211124576&oldid=211110866

I'm just going to walk away. Reading and copying/pasting from any book only to have it blatantly undone and then listen to rubbish on the talk page I can't take anymore.

PS: I can e-mail you scans of the pages for your reading (on Europe). Unfortunately, that's the best I can do under the situation.

One has to have extraordinary temperament in a place like this. Best of luck in keeping this place sane,

:-) Vtria 08 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Vtria 08

Yep, he's a sockpuppet. JFD (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Transport in Glasgow

Hi! I notice that you have reverted my edit in the Transport in Glasgow article. In your edit comment, you say the {{future uk public transportation}} template was re-added as per MoS. I am curious, what part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style do you refer to? --Kildor (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your comments. I've seen it in the past but I'm having trouble refinding it. Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL; Wikipedia:Current and future event templates and Category talk:Future events are the best that I can come up with, at the moment.Pyrotec (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, none of these are guidelines that endorse the use of such templates. And I am pretty sure you won't be able to find one. The templates are used because some users think they should be used, and not because there is a guideline that say so. --Kildor (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of possibilities: (1) you could be right, there may be no guidelines; (2) my attention was first drawn to these templates round about December 2006 / January 2007, but I might have mistaken another editor's decision for a guideline, but I think I would have checked the validity; (3) the guidelines may have changed in the last year; (4) there may be guidelines, but I have not found them yet.

Whilst this is not proof, heated discussions took place here Talk:Glasgow Central station#Future public transportation?. The argument was over the consequences of adding the flag, e.g. over the categorisation resulting from the use of the flag, not the need for a flag.

It appears that your objections to the use of the flag could be summarised (based on your edit summarises) as "stating the obvious". Are you attempting to remove all the flags or are you making a point about one that you removed and I reinstated?Pyrotec (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly remove all the flags myself. But I intend to remove some flags I consider useless and superfluous. It is not about making a point - it is simply a matter of improving articles. Unless you can find a policy or guideline that states that the templates should be used, I believe it is up to editors to decide if it is needed or not. --Kildor (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anglesey Central Railway

Thanks for the assessment you made to the article. You mentioned that you felt it required further copyediting. Could you tell me which areas of the article need this treatment, or possibly give a few examples? Thanks. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised that you've made some improvements already. It's all good stuff, but if you have any other reccomendations, I'm eager to hear them. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gunpowder

Oh, Sorry, I did not know that. It was abruptive to me, and looked very much like vandalism. I obviously need to read up about guano :-) Johan Dahlin (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sparkford

Hi Stewart, Sparkford, is near Yeovil in Somerset. Perhaps in Scotland, it is regarded as being near to Wellingborough, but it is certainly not in Northamptonshire. Can I suggest that you look at Jowett - its the ISBN page before the Title page.Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am totally confused as to why I thought Sparkford was in Northamptonshire - perhaps it was because I noted that one of the books was printed in Northamptonshire. Also making these sort of changes whilst in an airport lounge 1,000 miles away from the book I have is not a wise move. I have now checked the book and most definitely agree with you. Thanks for making the changes to the citation templates - this also justifies having these templates. --Stewart ^(talk) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other PSL books I have mis-located. I will have invariably copied one PSL book template to create another. --Stewart ^(talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Stephens Ltd (PSL)

I think this entry on World Cat is part of the reason for my confusion, also the edition of the Atlas I have is a Guild Publishing edition. --Stewart ^(talk) 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also noted that PSL seems to have been based in the Wellingborough area at some point, however are now in Somerset - probably when taken over by Haynes. There might even be a Wikipedia article in the history of PSL. --Stewart ^(talk) 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stewart. I have a number of PSL books apart from railway topics - e.g. the "Action Stations" series first published in the early 1980s. At that time PSL was at Bar Hill, Cambridge (CB3 8EL); by the time the second editions came out, book 9 (1984 & 1993), they had become part of Haynes and had a Sparkford Address. The museum bookshop was selling off PSL books cheaply in the mid-1990s (possibly remaindered stock - I should have bought some then). Interesting, Haynes International Motor Museum and Haynes Manuals have articles but not PSL or Haynes Publishing.Pyrotec (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnson-Glasgow

Woops, sorry I did not spot that you had already made a template for Johnson & Hume. I was going to call the book template "Glasgow Stations" but that template name was already in use for a route map that you had made; hence the modified name. Thanks for sorting it out.Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am about to go through my library of railway books as part of an exercise of added relevant references to various Scottish Railway articles. Johnson has been lying around the living room for the past month and I realised that it had important information for the various Glasgow railway articles. --Stewart ^(talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I ordered a S/H copy last week and it arrived on Wednesday. I was going to expand the James Miller (architect) article, amongst others.Pyrotec (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

request for comment

Hello. I would appreciate your comments here and here. Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bellahouston railway station

I will stand corrected, however I was under the impression that this station was located east of the current Dumbreck railway station, the other side of the M77. The reason for this was when I regularly used the line in the early 1980s, a regular stop would be at the signal just before going under Gower Street. The signal was on a section of platform ramp. The remains of the overbridge station building are still visible on multimap. --Stewart ^(talk) 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Now changed - my Geographia large scale detailed street plan in colour of Greater Glasgow (undated but of 1970s/early 80s vintage) confirms that the station was immediately west of Gower Street. The site of the station is not shown on the 1986 First Edition of Geographia's Glasgow Colour Atlas. Looks like Butt has made an error of precision.Pyrotec (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wylam and standard gauge

Pyrotec, The folllowing is a copy of correspondence between the Science Museum (London) and myself (Copy and paste):

Dear Mr. Horn, Thank-you for your enquiry, as you can see it has taken a rather circuitous route to find an answer.

As you may be aware ‘Puffing Billy’ was built several years before 1825, the date popularly considered to be when the railways began and well before the birth of ‘Rocket’. The story of ‘Puffing Billy’ really begins in the mid 18th Century when the owners of Wylam Colliery laid a five-mile long waggonway from their colliery to the riverside staithes of the Tyne . The waggonway was level throughout its length, constructed of timber rails 3 ½ inches wide and 4 ½ inches deep attached to stone sleepers at 18 inch intervals but more importantly the gauge was 5 feet throughout.

In 1800 the Wylam estates passed to Christopher Blackett, who ordered the colliery’s first locomotive, however it was not used on the waggonway because it was felt that it was too heavy for the wooden rails and so remained as a stationary engine. In 1808 the wooden waggonway was improved by the laying of L-shaped plate rails.

William Hedley had been appointed ‘Viewer’ of Wylam Colliery in 1805, Hedley had kept a close eye on the development of locomotives and with the blessing of Blackett he built a test vehicle to carry out experiments. At some point around 1812/3 he added a boiler to his test vehicle. A new vehicle was created the following year, by which time a young Timothy Hackworth was assisting Hedley, and a further one in 1815.

All of Hedley’s locomotives were built to be used on a specific waggonway, that of the Wylam Colliery. Therefore they all conformed to the 5 foot gauge.

Stephenson worked not far away at the Killingworth Colliery, he persuaded his employers that he could build them a locomotive, naturally this was built to the gauge of the Killingworth waggonway, Stephenson then moved on to construct the Hetton Colliery railway, which in turn led to his involvement in the Stockton and Darlington Railway.

As can be seen there was in fact no standard gauge for these waggonways, and in many cases it was not envisaged that they would link together to form a ‘railway’ network. The gauges ranged from 4’ (Tanfield) up to 5’ (Wylam), Killingworth was 4’8” as was the Hetton Line built by Stephenson. It was Stephenson’s influence that created the 4’8” Stockton and Darlington Railway and because he was chosen, over John Rennie, to be the engineer of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that too conformed to the 4’8” gauge. (Rennie had wanted 5’6”).

It would appear that the 4’8” gauge was adopted simply because the most popular consultant was most familiar with it. Incidentally I have not managed to find out when the extra 1/2“ was added.

Sources:

Lee, C.E., 1943, The Evolution of the Railways, (Railway Gazette: London )

Brookes, P.R.B., 1975, Wylam and its Railway Pioneers, (Wylam Parish Council)

Duty Curator

Search Engine

National Railway Museum

Leeman Road

York

YO26 4XJ

Search.engine@nrm.org.uk

---

From: Freedom of Information (SCM) Sent: 24 June 2008 11:26 To: Search Engine Subject: FW: Website comment form

Dear Search Engine

Please could I ask you to respond to this enquiry and let me have a copy of your response.

Thank you

Sarah

Sarah Norville Corporate Information and Enquiries Officer NMSI

The members of the NMSI family include: Science Museum , National Media Museum , National Railway Museum , Locomotion

National Railway Museum Leeman Road York YO26 4XJ t. 01904 686242 e. sarah.norville@nrm.org.uk

---

From: Nowak Michalina Sent: 24 June 2008 11:22 To: Freedom of Information (SCM) Subject: FW: Website comment form

Michalina Nowak Commercial Operations Coordinator

020 7942 4422

---

From: donotreply@nmsi.ac.uk [1] Sent: 24 June 2008 00:56 To: Feedback (SCM) Subject: Website comment form

Website comment form

Comments:

What was the track gauge for: 1) Puffing Billy 2) The Rocket It appeared to be more than 1435 mm. 

Require reply:

Yes

Name:

Peter Horn

Nationality:

Canadian

Address:

909 rue Wilfrid-Laurier Laval QC

County:

Canada

Postcode:

H7V 3E9

Email Address:

phorn12000@yahoo.ca

This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the National Museum of Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned on behalf of NMSI for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the National Museum of Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

End of Copy and paste

Peter Horn 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Add Puffing Billy (locomotive) Peter Horn 20:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the above??? Peter Horn 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, Thanks for your two messages (& attachment). I'm sorry for the delay in replying, I had two weeks holiday in Iceland, and your first message was read, but I forgot to respond. It is interesting to see the reply from the National Railway Museum. What they said is confirmed in Baxter, Bertram (1966). Stone Blocks and Iron Rails (Tramroads) (1st ed.). Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

.

When I first corresponded with you I had in front of me a borrowed copy of Baxter from the public library, on a week's loan; I've now managed to buy a second hand copy at a reasonable price. There's another reasonably priced one on sale in the USA, at the moment, but the UK is still a bit greedy [[2]]. All these statements knock on the head any idea of continuity of gauge from Roman chariots, to Saxon carts, to modern day trains. The best that we can say is that they all were about 4 ft to 5ft separation between the wheels. Its very interesting that no one has a definite as to why 4ft 8in became 4ft 8.5in.Pyrotec (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)